New font packaging guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Dear all,

As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation,
feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved
by FESCO.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

New font packages in review must now conform to the new templates, and
current packages be converted in rawhide by their maintainers. To track
the conversion progress I will henceforth file tickets in bugzilla.

The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can
serve as examples if the templates in the fontpackages-devel package are
not clear enough:

❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts

Note that the discussed renames and splits have not been submitted for
approval yet (I'm waiting for the rename process to be clarified), so
the current change is purely technical.

Nevertheless the new templates make creation of sub-packages
considerably easier and safer, so I advice packagers to perform a split
by family now if they don't mind. There was a broad consensus for the
splitting in general, and the only thing that remains to be clarified
before submission FPC-side is the wording of the few exceptions.

Sincerely,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot